3 ms·

Nobody really knows the correct answer and I think that's the reason communication is failing between the government and the tech sector. I think we have to re

by ffwd 10y ago

Nobody really knows the correct answer and I think that's the reason communication is failing between the government and the tech sector. I think we have to realize that some transparency into private lives is needed to have a proper society, and the anarcho-capitalists want full privacy from the get go and then increasing transparency as needed for society, while government is kind of hovering on the "we need transparency everywhere for any arbitrary reason because we don't know when we'll need it", and this is a difficult position to hold. I think unfortunately if we are to have a government, we need to do the latter, because the government can't intrude on privacy NOR punish people without evidence or at least minimum cause, while in a completely private anarcho-capitalist society the individuals who don't comply can be punished indirectly with exclusion and isolation from society. Personally this seems like a pretty crappy way to do things but that's a post for another time.

CaptSpify 10y ago
Absolutely disagree. A) Even when the government has the data to stop someone, they don't: https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/terrorists-were-already-known-to-authorities/ https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/terrorists-were-already-... B) Outlawing crypto just doesn't work. You can't outlaw math. You can try all day long, but that only hurts the masses At some point, you have to realize that breaking encryption has nothing to do with safety, but is all about power.
- ffwd 10y ago
  a) I don't want to comment on that intercept piece because there is clear bias there and I don't have all the facts. b) I think actually the FBI is mainly talking about the defaults in software, like how Apple enabled strong encryption for any user. Defaults matter when you consider the 95% of people who would not otherwise use encryption, including all kinds of criminals. I think everyone realizes you can't remove encryption from the face of the earth, it's just not doable and not worthy of discussion and that's not what I'm talking about. The FBI is doing this because they try to reverse the Apple defaults and don't really have any other way. The next step is to "have the debate" but as we can see that is incredibly difficult. Regarding your last point. Sure, that's one way to talk about it, but if it is the case that it's all about power, then why do we even have governments? All the trust is broken and we are essentially asking to be left alone to solve crimes that happen in our neighborhoods. The government and the FBI / others are supposed to work FOR us, for society as a whole, based on the laws we vote for/lobby for. They aren't meant to have their own will and goals like "power". Only private corporations and individuals want power, that's what the whole point of this government thing was in the first place.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    B) The FBI is certainly not talking about only defaults. They have said that they don't want unbreakable encryption anywhere. > They aren't meant to have their own will and goals like "power". Yet they undeniably do. Pretending that they don't is sheer naivety. I'm not much of a political theorist, but we have government because we tend to trust them more than the average mob. They aren't infallible though, and we need checks and balances to keep them in place.
    - ffwd 10y ago
      > The FBI is certainly not talking about only defaults. You are right that considering the whole history of encryption and the FBI, they don't want it anywhere, but as James Comey has himself said, this debate kicked into high gear late 2014 when Apple started with the default encryption, and law enforcement saw an increase in devices they couldn't get into. I think if strong encryption had been on the outliers as it was before that time, we wouldn't have seen this issues raised by the FBI in this manner. I think it is undoubtable that the default is a big reason for this because if many companies start to follow suit, it can have real consequences. Even though James Comey's proposal of wanting "both strong encryption AND government access" probably came from a place of ignorance of the technology, I do think there is a debate to be had there about securing servers with keys or whatever else just like Google and Facebook and Apple are expected to secure all their other data. Right now, it is completely out of the question when you ask a tech person, because of lack of trust. > They aren't infallible though, and we need checks and balances to keep them in place. Absolutely, the way I like to look at it is basic costs and benefits, pros and cons. There are real harms to strong encryption, whether one would like to admit it or not, so the point is to weigh the costs and benefits and go from there. Right now encryption seems more like a religion, a last bastion of freedom or something. Maybe there are other ways to have accountability.
      - CaptSpify 10y ago
        And we wouldn't have kicked privacy into high-gear if government agencies had proven themselves trustworthy. But they abused their powers, and here we are. I hate saying "they started it", but... they did. > There are real harms to strong encryption, whether one would like to admit it or not, so the point is to weigh the costs and benefits and go from there. Right now encryption seems more like a religion, a last bastion of freedom or something. Maybe there are other ways to have accountability. Oh, there absolutely are cons, I don't see anyone saying otherwise. But, just statistically speaking, there is vastly more harm in not having strong encryption. The cost/benefits are so skewed to one side, it's not even really a discussion. Maybe there are other ways to have accountability, but I have yet to see a viable one.
leshow 10y ago
> I think we have to realize that some transparency into private lives is needed to have a proper society, and the anarcho-capitalists want full privacy from the get go This is almost a non-sequitor. If your private life is transparent then it ceases to be private. You're in fact advocating no private life. I strongly disagree that this position would be good for society. It's funny how you'd think you have to be an 'anarcho-capitalist' to want privacy. The rest of your comment is a strawman, whatever your feelings about 'anarcho-capitalism' is irrelevant to having a right to privacy.
- ffwd 10y ago
  > You're in fact advocating no private life. I strongly disagree that this position would be good for society. No, I'm not advocating for anything per se, I'm just bringing up opposite points of view. I don't have an easy answer either. Second, no privacy is what has been the standard since governments started. There has been no technology that has been able to make some aspect of reality 100% private, other than the decay of physical objects over time, essentially erasing the evidence. The fact that we can have permanent 100% private aspects of life is a brand new thing, and thus must be discussed in that manner. That's why I brought up the extreme of anarcho-capitalism - not to speak against it but as a counterpoint to what we have now/what has been.
  - iamnothere 10y ago
    "No privacy" has certainly NOT been the standard. Before the information age, people were more likely to communicate extremely private information in person. Until the invention of microphones, this communication was most certainly private if you could avoid eavesdroppers! Now, with everything from TVs to phones to lampposts listening in, this type of communication carries less of a privacy guarantee, but it's still one of the only methods to obtain actual privacy under the right conditions. So let's all go back to in-person conversations, right? It's not that easy. Friends and loved ones no longer live as close as they once did, as technology has allowed us to stay connected at greater distances. This means that our options under the current state of the world are (a) keep sensitive information away from our trusted confidantes until we see them in person, whenever that is, or (b) get used to the idea that sensitive information could be exposed. Either one of these options brings with it increased psychological stress. This is a big reason why people want "unbreakable" security, and there's nothing nefarious about it!
hx87 10y ago
A third possible position would be the government stating "we need transparency everywhere, including for ourselves"--I would be that people would be much more accepting of transparency when government is totally transparent in return. For many reasons, governments are reluctant to take this position.

by ffwd 10y ago

CaptSpify 10y ago

Absolutely disagree. A) Even when the government has the data to stop someone, they don't: https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/terrorists-were-already-known-to-authorities/ https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/terrorists-were-already-... B) Outlawing crypto just doesn't work. You can't outlaw math. You can try all day long, but that only hurts the masses At some point, you have to realize that breaking encryption has nothing to do with safety, but is all about power.

ffwd 10y ago
a) I don't want to comment on that intercept piece because there is clear bias there and I don't have all the facts. b) I think actually the FBI is mainly talking about the defaults in software, like how Apple enabled strong encryption for any user. Defaults matter when you consider the 95% of people who would not otherwise use encryption, including all kinds of criminals. I think everyone realizes you can't remove encryption from the face of the earth, it's just not doable and not worthy of discussion and that's not what I'm talking about. The FBI is doing this because they try to reverse the Apple defaults and don't really have any other way. The next step is to "have the debate" but as we can see that is incredibly difficult. Regarding your last point. Sure, that's one way to talk about it, but if it is the case that it's all about power, then why do we even have governments? All the trust is broken and we are essentially asking to be left alone to solve crimes that happen in our neighborhoods. The government and the FBI / others are supposed to work FOR us, for society as a whole, based on the laws we vote for/lobby for. They aren't meant to have their own will and goals like "power". Only private corporations and individuals want power, that's what the whole point of this government thing was in the first place.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  B) The FBI is certainly not talking about only defaults. They have said that they don't want unbreakable encryption anywhere. > They aren't meant to have their own will and goals like "power". Yet they undeniably do. Pretending that they don't is sheer naivety. I'm not much of a political theorist, but we have government because we tend to trust them more than the average mob. They aren't infallible though, and we need checks and balances to keep them in place.
  - ffwd 10y ago
    > The FBI is certainly not talking about only defaults. You are right that considering the whole history of encryption and the FBI, they don't want it anywhere, but as James Comey has himself said, this debate kicked into high gear late 2014 when Apple started with the default encryption, and law enforcement saw an increase in devices they couldn't get into. I think if strong encryption had been on the outliers as it was before that time, we wouldn't have seen this issues raised by the FBI in this manner. I think it is undoubtable that the default is a big reason for this because if many companies start to follow suit, it can have real consequences. Even though James Comey's proposal of wanting "both strong encryption AND government access" probably came from a place of ignorance of the technology, I do think there is a debate to be had there about securing servers with keys or whatever else just like Google and Facebook and Apple are expected to secure all their other data. Right now, it is completely out of the question when you ask a tech person, because of lack of trust. > They aren't infallible though, and we need checks and balances to keep them in place. Absolutely, the way I like to look at it is basic costs and benefits, pros and cons. There are real harms to strong encryption, whether one would like to admit it or not, so the point is to weigh the costs and benefits and go from there. Right now encryption seems more like a religion, a last bastion of freedom or something. Maybe there are other ways to have accountability.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      And we wouldn't have kicked privacy into high-gear if government agencies had proven themselves trustworthy. But they abused their powers, and here we are. I hate saying "they started it", but... they did. > There are real harms to strong encryption, whether one would like to admit it or not, so the point is to weigh the costs and benefits and go from there. Right now encryption seems more like a religion, a last bastion of freedom or something. Maybe there are other ways to have accountability. Oh, there absolutely are cons, I don't see anyone saying otherwise. But, just statistically speaking, there is vastly more harm in not having strong encryption. The cost/benefits are so skewed to one side, it's not even really a discussion. Maybe there are other ways to have accountability, but I have yet to see a viable one.

leshow 10y ago

> I think we have to realize that some transparency into private lives is needed to have a proper society, and the anarcho-capitalists want full privacy from the get go This is almost a non-sequitor. If your private life is transparent then it ceases to be private. You're in fact advocating no private life. I strongly disagree that this position would be good for society. It's funny how you'd think you have to be an 'anarcho-capitalist' to want privacy. The rest of your comment is a strawman, whatever your feelings about 'anarcho-capitalism' is irrelevant to having a right to privacy.

ffwd 10y ago
> You're in fact advocating no private life. I strongly disagree that this position would be good for society. No, I'm not advocating for anything per se, I'm just bringing up opposite points of view. I don't have an easy answer either. Second, no privacy is what has been the standard since governments started. There has been no technology that has been able to make some aspect of reality 100% private, other than the decay of physical objects over time, essentially erasing the evidence. The fact that we can have permanent 100% private aspects of life is a brand new thing, and thus must be discussed in that manner. That's why I brought up the extreme of anarcho-capitalism - not to speak against it but as a counterpoint to what we have now/what has been.
- iamnothere 10y ago
  "No privacy" has certainly NOT been the standard. Before the information age, people were more likely to communicate extremely private information in person. Until the invention of microphones, this communication was most certainly private if you could avoid eavesdroppers! Now, with everything from TVs to phones to lampposts listening in, this type of communication carries less of a privacy guarantee, but it's still one of the only methods to obtain actual privacy under the right conditions. So let's all go back to in-person conversations, right? It's not that easy. Friends and loved ones no longer live as close as they once did, as technology has allowed us to stay connected at greater distances. This means that our options under the current state of the world are (a) keep sensitive information away from our trusted confidantes until we see them in person, whenever that is, or (b) get used to the idea that sensitive information could be exposed. Either one of these options brings with it increased psychological stress. This is a big reason why people want "unbreakable" security, and there's nothing nefarious about it!

hx87 10y ago

A third possible position would be the government stating "we need transparency everywhere, including for ourselves"--I would be that people would be much more accepting of transparency when government is totally transparent in return. For many reasons, governments are reluctant to take this position.